State v. Arbuthnot
367 So. 2d 296 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testimony from a police officer recounting an out-of-court identification made by a witness who does not testify at trial is inadmissible hearsay. The admission of such evidence to bolster the state's case on a material, contested issue constitutes reversible error.
Facts:
- An armed robbery of Larry Tedley occurred at a store.
- One robber, allegedly Norman Williams, entered the store wearing a ski mask, which he removed inside the store while demanding money.
- Two individuals, Larry Tedley and a Mrs. Silver, were present and observed the unmasked robber's face.
- The second robber, Donald Arbuthnot, was shot during the getaway.
- A bystander identified Arbuthnot as he fled the scene.
- Arbuthnot was later arrested at a hospital where he sought treatment for his gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Arbuthnot and Norman Williams were jointly charged with armed robbery in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- At trial, the prosecution called a police officer who testified that Mrs. Silver, a non-testifying eyewitness, had identified Williams from a photograph.
- The defense objected to this testimony as hearsay, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
- A jury convicted both Arbuthnot and Williams of armed robbery.
- Williams appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, with his primary assignment of error being the trial court's admission of the officer's hearsay testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a police officer's testimony about an out-of-court photographic identification made by a non-testifying witness constitute inadmissible hearsay and reversible error?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tate
Yes. The admission of the police officer's testimony regarding Mrs. Silver's out-of-court identification is inadmissible hearsay and constitutes reversible error. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is generally inadmissible because it denies the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Citing State v. Ford, the court held that an assertive act, such as pointing to a photograph, is a communication subject to the hearsay rule. Because the identifying witness, Mrs. Silver, did not testify at trial, the state was improperly allowed to use the officer's hearsay testimony to bolster its case and double the eyewitness identification of Williams. This error was prejudicial, as it substantially corroborated the testimony of the state's only in-court identification witness, depriving Williams of his right to confrontation and a fair trial.
Dissenting - Justice Summers
Justice Summers dissented without providing a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the prohibition against hearsay evidence in criminal trials, specifically in the context of out-of-court identifications. It clarifies that non-verbal, assertive actions like selecting a photograph are treated as statements for hearsay purposes. The decision underscores the critical importance of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine accusers. By reversing the conviction, the court established a firm precedent that the state cannot use a police officer as a proxy to introduce identification evidence from a witness who is not present to testify, thereby preventing the prosecution from unfairly 'bolstering' its case on a contested issue.
